A lot of times when I read topics pertaining to the universe, everyone assumes there was a "beginning".  What if time existed infinatly into the past? Think about motion- if you move your hand from point a to point b, it is not only changing distance, it is moving through time. If time was stopped your hand would not be able to move. For anything to change, time has to be present. For something to go FROM one state TO another state, it had to pass through time.

Now think about what the universe would be like "before time"- before the "big bang". Everything would be static- no movement, no change. But for something to set off the bang, time would have to already be present- because something would have to change. That is why I think time existed infinatly into the past.

From what I've read, time and space are supposed to be connected in some way. If time existed infinatly into the past, why couldn't space exist infinatly in all directions?

Maybe what we see as our universe- what is expanding from the big bang isn't all of the universe. What if big bangs are just a natural occurance in the total universe? We have multiple planets in a solar system, multiple solar systems in a galaxy, and we assume multiple galaxies within the universe. Maybe there are multiple galaxies within our "bang" and multiple bangs within the universe.

Maybe the universe was never "created" but simply "is" and always "was". If there is a remote chance at humanity, in an infinate existance it is inevitable. Maybe the universe itsself is God.

I have just one thing to add to that:  God is you

S0lid,  Did I spell that right?  The problem is in trying to comprehend this stuff with just a three pound universe of our own stuffed in a bony cavern, contending with ear wax and eye goop.  It is like trying to do a cross word puzzle with a spam masubi, (a favorite here in Hawaii).  To understand this you have to visualize that we are only a dust whorl behind the chair in the livng room.  This is something I wondered about when I was kid.  Specks in the sunlight.  Moguls of the dust bin.  Time is of the clock.  Space fills the void between two points.  What is important is not why we are here so much as what are we going to do about it?

Dan,
Come on, He is also your grandmother.  Are you spoofing?  Or has the tar baby got to you that got to me.  You'll be out back next pattin' you 'galis.

You know as well as I do that before time there were just lumps and attempts to start.  Sort of like a drunk snake that ate one too many fermented mice.  What do you think will happen after time?

Have a good time in Co?  Boulder, I bet.

John

HEY, WONDERFUL topic here..only thing is that there are proven millions of galaxies and solar systems out there. Another thing to consider are black holes. It is now known that black holes are in the center of each and every galaxy that can be tested for balck holes. What a black hole is, is the destruction of time, space, gravity, matter, etc...So, black holesexist, and black holes trap time and space and everything else we know to be...

I think learning about space, galaxies, universes, stars, planets, space/time fabric, black holes, etc...is SOO interesting and maddening, because it is way beyond my grasp of knowledge! You need to throw away all you know about your pers[ective of size, of time, of weight, of math, etc...in order to understand they sky beyond!

Ok, I think I ranted off topic here, but your post about time realy is good and inspired me to write a bit of what i know.

Love,
Dara

sOlid,

To contemplate generates a warm philosophic feeling.
Thoughout recorded history there are many contemplations.  Many, many versions of the truth.
Eventually everything turns to cheesecake except religions.  Religeons are murderous because someone always comes along and fashions a religion to control superstitious people.  The Romans for instance shaped Christianity into a patriarchal, stern, no-nonsense, you are a sinner type of vehicle to control.  Now, where do you think they got this image from?  Why from looking in the mirror!  We have been looking into this mirror for two thousand years.
The best way to look at things is through the eyes of youth with humor added.  Einstein made his discoveries by working with the images he had when he was a boy.
He was a very poor mathematician in real life.
We can only work with who we are at this moment, we have nothing else.  Everything else is illusion.  Illusion does not mean that anything you look at is unreal, but, the the perspective is unreal.  The perspective is not inside the thing you are gazing at but is an angle, a vector.  Someone else's perspective is just that-their view from their angle.  So what is yours?
Look, if we just pretend we are kids, we can do anything.  Let us play cosmologists.
Take Dara's statement about black holes.  Apply a simple question:  What is the opposite of a black hole?
Dan can play too, if he wants.  And I hope Dara does too.  Take everything Dara said and reverse it is a clue.  Now where do you find that condition in the universe?  There is a way to get answers, right from inside your own perspective.
John, with his own angle, or sometimes known as  the vectologist or was it mirrologist?  perspectologist?.  Wanders away muttering......gazing into the heavans inscrutably

It's not as clear as it might seem:

http://www.desy.de/pub/www/projects/Physic...s/universe.html

A further remark would be about our universe being much younger than what created it. And this doesn't exist of materia, but of consciousness, and for consciousness it could well be possible to pop out of nothing.

And this nothing was static - no movement, no change, as sOlid correctly observed.

The problem with time stretching infinitely to the past would be:
1) If there's a constant development then you can trace this development back until you reach zero.
2) If there's no constant development (but some repeating or chaotic action) then God would be stupid because he either would be amnesiac or crazy. Or you'd have to deny him spontaneous and creative qualities.

You can fill in 'global consciousness' or 'universe' for God, if you prefer.

2) If there's no constant development (but some repeating or chaotic action) then God would be stupid because he either would be amnesiac or crazy. Or you'd have to deny him spontaneous and creative qualities.


Or maybe there just isn't a "god" that "created" the universe.
I agree with others that when people refer to"god" and "spirituality" they are referring to human consciousness, and being in touch with that consciousness. I just don't necessarily belive that that consciousness created anything, but rather was a phenominon created by the universe.

When I think of consciousness I think of the wind- it's just what happens when certain particles move in certain ways.

I want to draw your attention to the topic 'physics and consciousness' in the neuroscience section of this board.

hey synch

I'm not in Denver anymore, just stayed for 2 nights.  I'm back in good ol' tornado ravaged OK.  And as for my statement on this board, I try to work with the people.  You might say that everything I say is a spoof to some degree

8)

DId you know:

Black holes cannot be seen? They are only detected by the wobble of the stars that  are around the black hole. DId you know that every known galaxy has a black hole in the center of it? Some are acticve and some are not...active meaning eating...or whatever black holes do...devour everythign! Well, what ever enters the gravitational pull of the black hole ceases to exist. Black holes devour light, time, matter, etc!

Anyone hear about  the theories about the black matter in space? WHat do you think it is made of? What do you think about the possibility of life on Europa? One of Jupiter's moons? Life may be under teh thick crust of ice...I just LOVE all this stuff! Any takers?

Love,
Dara

Good to have you back, Dan.  How long has it been that you have been having these tornados in your life?  Did you notice anything in particular when they began?  You didn't notice  a return spoof comment around here?  Must be gremlins.  Let's see, physics in Norman, must be bio--- or Neurophysiology in Denver?  How close?

Dara, Yes, it's exciting.  if you like symmetry and black holes then you will see the reason for my question and a lead in for sOlid.  Maybe it is possible to detect some of these happenings at a distance by observing what is happening here.
Let me explain by asking the same question in reverse.
In our universe we have a great expansion going on.
It is governed by something called  entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.  A smaller system dissapating into a larger one. It is aloss of energy into something else. A slowing down. What is opposite this in the universe?

Hey Dara

did you know that some black holes can also be seen indirectly due to high-energy radiation emitted from matter that is being gobbled up?  

natural science is a really cool field of thought for sure.  used to be called 'natural philosophy', but these days it is more like 'unnaturally hard and confusing philosophy'    ;D

Synch,
I guess you could call it bio in Denver, what with takin' care of family and whatnot.  aaugghhh, tornado!!!......gotta run...

8)

Once Manfred jumped into the black hole in the center of our milky way, and he appeared in three or four other black holes somewhere else simultaneously. This must have been quite strange for him for he came back immediately. (It was the first time he did this, but he was very excited, as always when he discovers something new.)

And there was an occasion when I told him that our galaxy isn't the only one, that there are billions of them. This was a novelty for him, because until then he thought that our galaxy is the whole universe. (He lives in space, travelling from star to star, so it's understandable that he found out that all the stars are arranged in one cluster, but couldn't see what's further away.)

If we take these two incidents and use them for finding out what Manfred really is then it's getting complicated. The most probable solution would be that he's a being that exists independently from me and has his own level of knowledge about the universe. Else I don't know how to interprete the communication cited above. Because if he would be my personal higher self then why didn't he know that there are other galaxies? My mind has known this for decades. And the first incident would be strange also, because my opinion was that this stuff of using a black hole as a medium for transportation, like a wormhole, is nonsense. (But I have to admit that I don't really understand the gravitation formulas, so perhaps it's true.)

John, are you really sure that Manfred is not more than you thought?

Numinoso,

This interpretation is quite difficult without the nice orderliness of the visionary dream.  So, I must guess,
even I don't necessarily agree with what I say, as I recently read somewhere.
Here is the difficulty.  You have a vision.  In order to interpret that vision that is passed through your own personal memory banks, we have to have an association that you have to that particular vision.
What do we know about Manfred?
He is an Austrian like you.  (Familiarity and identity
with you)
He manuevers in space and resides on Serius.  (Intuition?)
He is now benevolent, but was not when a certain character was around, what was the nature of that character?
He does not know some things that you know, for instance about black holes.
He acts excited like a boy at times.
He has lived 50,000 years ago.
Associated with a Mexican woman.
What else?

Preliminarily, I get  the sense that he is a composite being.  Part you, part boy, part neoSelf, part influenced by some evil entity that has now departed. (father?)

These images are subjective and are a mixture of what is perceived and the ability and structure of the perceiver to perceive.   (As a crude example, if you only saw a red-green part of the spectrum, it would make little difference if the image presented were full color) It is a manifold many faces of God awareness.  Not impossible to decode, only getting to know the receiver so that part of the imagery can be accounted for and the proper adjustment made.

Perhaps it's better if I take the meaning of all this at face value. Because if I start interpreting it as my father and stuff then it falls apart and nothing is left. Besides, it's quite weird that my father should have learned to appear as a spiritual monster with a third eye as big as a car wheel, living on a ship in the sky with companions whom he feeds dinosaur's pineal glands which he fishes from the depths of the earth, having funny deadly weapons I never ever saw before, hypnotizing all my other telepathic friends and make them perform a 'village kill' on me, where I was in the middle of them and they attacked me from all sides, manipulating Carlos Castaneda's tensegrity folks into attacking me by misaligning their cerebellum hemispheres so that one half of them thought it was a play while the other performed a killermachine, and doing all kinds of things for weeks after our battle to harm me, which I felt in my body like magnetic disturbance, radioactive influence, and so on.

I simply think my father would never be able to gain such knowledge, neither the father complex in me whom I always despised. And it's unlikely that I should have attributed him with this power. Why and how should he ever be able to gain such momentum in my unconscious, when all he ever was is a block that hinders me with his petty prejudices?

And this time also brought a separate perception of my father which was only short, one evening, where I felt his inclination towards death as a disturbance in me, in my heart, which got moved out. It was a very strong emotion, but minimal compared to the other things that happened then.

I think interpreting things symbolically sometimes puts a veil over your eyes. Might be true that Manfred is not a man who was born 50.000 years ago and continues existing in Sirius, but so far this is the best option for me to handle him. Every other interpretation belittles him and makes him disappear. I see no reason why I should do this.

Time is such an elusive concept, but here's some random musings: we are time-bound creatures, able to move freely in space while time moves inexorably in one direction; imagine moving about freely in time! What would this mean? Could such a scenario support consciousness? Probably not.

If time is related to space as a 4th dimension of spacetime, perhaps its unidirectionality is a special property of our universe, that is time as it flows for us began with the beginning of the universe. There could not then exist a 'before' in any ordinary sense of the word.

I'm also interested in the concept of consciousness as a further property of the universe, rather than an emergent property of brain-function. For me, the jury's out on that one, but I think it's important to keep an open mind.

Some of my thoughts connected with time and black holes can be found at http://mysite.freeserve.com/padleywood/articles.htm under the heading 'Death and the perception of time'.

And to answer synchronox's earlier question, it is of course the spontaneous emergence of order from chaos - perhaps, of all universal principles, this could be the one most deserving of the epithet 'Life force'.

Numinoso,

Thank you so much for responding in the fashion you did.  It allows me to clarify a most difficult part of this new attempt to make an excusion into the visionary sciences.  
The reason I mentioned your father as a part of the suggested composite of Manfred is not to suggest he is a part of your vision of the neoSelf, but a distortion of your mirror.  A distortion of your ability to perceive and see the image of this new entity.  Your mirror is an organic one as all of our perceptions are.  It is not how and what you see so much as it is how you interpret it.
The first part of this work is to clear up the distortions of this perception equipment as you and I are doing off line.  We have to tune our transceiver.  Our viewing station of the universe.

ID,

We have to be careful, you and me, we could really go for a sail in this universe of ours.  I can see that maybe you can open more doors than I can go through without turning into a blur.
Seriously, you gave a finer answer than I expected.

You said:
"And to answer synchronox's earlier question, it is of course the spontaneous emergence of order from chaos - perhaps, of all universal principles, this could be the one most deserving of the epithet 'Life force'.

Encapsulating the essense of the question.

You also said:

"Time is such an elusive concept, but here's some random musings: we are time-bound creatures, able to move freely in space while time moves inexorably in one direction; imagine moving about freely in time! What would this mean? Could such a scenario support consciousness? Probably not.

He responded pretending to be a non time bound entity in the following fashion:

When we broke the speed of light barrier (E=MC+1) and entered the world of the physical realm (solidified energy), we came under the rule of the clock.

Synch, if we assume that all these visions I had were only interior perceptions, in which case I would rather attribute them to the DNA consciousness than to cellar parts of my brain, then I would say I don't want any of these folks in there. But I don't know whether this is right. I mean, the DNA is such a big storage of information, and anything could be there, so I would think that visions of people is not the finest thing to have there. I would rather prefer abstract things, because one thing I discovered is that everything starts to look like people if I'm in a certain mood, and that's pretty crazy.

But perhaps not all the people in there are disturbing. I guess this place is also where telepathic connections establish, and if this is so, then I should rather let them be and develop. Perhaps Manfred is a telepathic entity, housing in scores of people, as so many other 'reincarnating souls' use to do.

The funny thing was the story of the Mexican woman. She had met Manfred as a man who was possessed by a superior spirit. Both the man in reality as the spirit were called Manfred, which is weird. But perhaps the spirit only adopted this name because the man had it. So, then she lived with him for three months, and he was like a sorcerer, as she said. He had glowing red eyes at times, she saw his aura, all the time he found money on the street, he knew everything about airplanes from the first world war because he said he once was Manfred von Richthofen. And more.

Either she was lying, which I don't think because she seemed honest, or she was crazy and imagining it, perhaps having had a vision and projecting it to the outside. On the other hand, there are other stories of spirit possessions. (And I don't want to start with the dog of Taisha Abelar who was called Manfred, too. And which was published after I met this woman.) I remember one that I saw on TV where a man in Brasilia could let himself possess by the spirits of painters, and then he could paint exactly like Monet or Van Gogh, or others. The experts couldn't notice the difference, and he wasn't copying but painting as if it was his style. And there are many healers throughout the world who work with the help of the souls of dead people. I once was with the Hermanito in Mexico City who says the spirit of Cuauhtemoc helps him. He also does operations, and cured this woman when she had a cancer. Like those operations they talk about when they open the body and take things out. And her doctor asked her later what happened with her because it was disappeared.

So I'm not sure what to do with these things. In the moment I'm not interested in perceiving these entities because it makes me feel weird. But I'm not sure what to do about them. If they're existing independently then I have to treat them as they appear, that is, killing the bad ones (like the Papua), ignoring the stupids (like Zeus), and making friends with the good folks (the devils or Manfred). But if they're only products of something within me then it might be better to get rid of them totally to make room for something that makes more sense.

I have thought that the right hemisphere is the connection to the DNA, and the DNA is the connection to higher levels, they are in materia, electrons and protons. (I had visions of them under psilocybe and mescalin, there are many colors, and structures of different kinds.)

Perhaps you can access IT from anywhere, from your brain, your DNA, or your molecules, but the DNA might be best. About the DNA I have found out that the center of it is in the heart which is the highest integrating place for it. (I don't know why, perhaps it's not the heart but the chest area, e.g. the thymus gland is interesting because it's processing DNA.) What happens is that probably every cell colony in our body (that is, similar cells, like liver cells, or liver membrane cells) has its own stock of information. It should depend on the organization of the DNA in them, which parts are unfolded and which are covered by histones.

Or probably it's more general, like the whole eye, not the many different cell types in there. But I perceive different things in my eyes (like dark structures from a man from the comics) than in other parts. But if I concentrate on the heart then it's like the place where all these different things are connected in a whitish light.

Numinoso,

I have to be a reductionist to explain what you have brought up.  If only I were a better writer!  And the materiel is so new.  OK, I got that out of the way. So, something strange is about to come out.

Let us try to examine something on the horizon.

1.  We begin by realizing there is something on the horizon.  Realization.

2.  We have a telescope to bring an image of that something into focus.  Focus.

3.  There is intervening atmosphere between the object and us.  Some distortion that we can only ignore.  Only can be recognized and zero summed out.  Translation.

4.  The mechanics of the telescope.  Is the lens surface smooth?  Is the optical path straight internally?  Is our receiver optimal for the job?  Optimization.

5.  After viewing the image, do we know what it is?
Pattern recognition.

A failure of any one of the above will cause a distortion or a failure to perceive.
I just invented the above in order to answer you your most difficult question.  So our interaction tells me something I did not know.  If you were not there, I would not be here.

Realization-Conscious awareness of something else
Focus-Our intentionality to see what it is.
Translation-the ability to bring something into our local domain to understand the image of it.  may take technique and development.  In this metaphor-metaphoric translation.
Optimization-tuning our receiver in if you have a distorted lens system due to the pressures of the father the image will be distorted, for instance.  You might perceive a distortion in the lens for a distortion in the object perceived.
Pattern recognition-If you do not have the capacity to identify what you see, you might think the image something else entirely.

So, there you have it, a system design invented by your question.

Best to you,
John

Yes, there's been a funny similarity between the Papua and the Creator of this universe. I never knew how to figure it out. Although I had the suspicion that they could be identical I rather preferred to believe that the Papua had stolen some energy from the Creator, or something like that. But it could also be that my way of observing it distorted it, so that it seemed to be an entirely different entity. (The observer influences the observed, as they say.)

Or let's say, the lens not only brought me a distorted image, it also triggered a certain behavior from this guy, so that he appeared as a monster.

Actually, this Creator is quite okay. He's not the best creator of all the creators, as his respective creator once told me, who in turn was created by the First One. You know, there are many creators, and they all are creating universes, as it seems. And our creator has created ours. But he's kind of not really so super intelligent, and also a little bit negligent, and kind of egoistic, and others. But being a young creature, all this can better in the course of his existence, so there's still hope for us.

One interesting thing with him is that he is manifold. He can appear as a fully-fledged creator, but when something goes wrong and he starts to dissolve then there are many copies of him at stand-by ready to come in. And the funny thing is when he behaves erroneously then he can't continue existing where he is at the moment, but starts to disappear, like shrinking. He always said, when he looks like a bear then it's a sign that he's going away.

Usually he looks like a big white roundish symmetric something with something like a face on top, but there are many variations in this. He's kind of mighty. Actually, he's a sorcerer far beyond the scope of humans, but for his quirks  he's not the most reliable one (at least was), and some of his actions then fall apart. But in the beginning I liked him, really. Only then I noticed some problems, and somehow our relation receded. Could be that we come together again (when he behaves).

It would make perfect sense to interprete this ship as the Christian heaven, with Jesus and Moses, and lots of others up there. Then the Papua who was the creator. And Manfred who was me, and only appeared bigger than others because he's so close to me. Could be that people who have a different way of viewing this don't see themselves up there, but a big and mighty benevolent God, and Moses and Jesus, and all the other Christian folks with them there. (There were many.) (I hope I didn't cause too much damage when we had this stupid battle.)

Still, it was too funny when the Devil told God that he had been created by someone else and is not the first cause of everything existing.

Numinoso,

I have observed in the transformations that I have experienced that when I transform, everything dies including the image of the latest and highest form of the dream maker.  Then the new vision comes into the picture only after the old has vacated.   From this observation, I think we have a self referencing system.  The image of our local god changes as we advance.
John

I think they are creatures who exist by themselves. It's not too logical that only humans should know individuality, and the rest of the world would be a united something.

It's not really convincing that the Creator or the Devil should have something to do with my internal development. Before I met them I thought like you, that everything above us is an abstract something, like the Spirit of Castaneda, or the Tao. Imagine how surprised I was when I got to know the Creator, or the devils. I always thought the Christian idea of the Creator as an individual is nonsense, and that the devil doesn't exist, that he's just an invention of simple-minded folks.

It makes more sense to me to assume that these beings exist independently from my conscious or unconscious. What else should it be? The Universal Consciousness being a limitless ocean, without the ability of creating beings, and humans the first and only ones who ever conceived the idea of individuality? I would say this is a very constricted vision, it's much wider to say there is the ocean as well as Gods and Devils, and all of the rest. (And the ocean in itself is an individual for himself, although we humans might prefer to perceive him as a qualityless something.)

I also regard Manfred now as being one of the devils. It makes so much sense. He didn't want to present him as a supernatural being, that's why he always said he was born as a human. (Even it's close to the truth, because it seems he has been created for humanity, for being similar to us.) That was also the reason why the Creator in the beginning didn't say, 'hey, son, I'm God, bend down', but presented himself as another human. Only later, when I was accustomed to them, did they say who they are, the Creator appearing as the Creator, and Manfred saying he's the Devil's youngest son, which I thought was a joke as long as I couldn't fully comprehend all this.

Numinoso,

But, that is not what I said in my reply.  I did not say that humans create their own gods.  I said that this was a self referencing system.  As you advance your gods advance has nothing to do with generating them yourself.  You upscale to the next level.
For instance, with the neoSelf, I conjured him up with my intentionality, this does not mean I created him.  I am responsible for his appearance in my life.
You did the same with yours. No?

John

Yes, but you seem to be very close to the viewpoint that any God material comes from somewhere within us. That's not what I think. Might be that I get better and more accurate perceptions of the Creator or of Manfred, but in the end they exist somewhere independent of me. If I would cease to exist, and if humanity would disappear, they and all other creatures of their sort would still be somewhere. (Although most probably not in the form as we perceive them.)

I'm not sure what I'm doing with my neoSelf so far. He appears under different symbols in my dreams, but I see no progression. They rather seem to be various aspects of him. I also don't know why I should choose one of these aspects and give it predominance. I'm comfortable with all of them, perhaps the underlying feeling is what is closest to him.

Numinoso,

You have to figure it out for yourself.  My 'take' on it is different then yours.  If it were the same we would be back in the collective.
We are a self referencing node in the universe.  What ever you do to acheive a higher level of consciousness will be reflected in the world around you.  Consciousness triumphs.  Get held back by the opinions of others and suffer the warmth and also get left behind.  A hard tale to tell in this lonely place.
This is the training ground.  Most people's chances dribble down the organic regenerative pathways and they recycle back to their old haunts.  I will use my life to propel me forward in the chance there is something more.  If I am wrong, then I will die like everyone else.  If I am right......

Yes, like that. If I'm wrong and these are just unconscious drives then they won't have a problem if I handle them at face value. And if I'm right great many more things will happen like already.

Doing it otherwise would be not so easy. If they are real beings and I believe they're just unconscious drives they would think I'm crazy and turn their back on me. So, the possible disadvantages are smaller and the advantages higher when I interprete them the way I do.

That does not mean that everyone should do the same. Might be that most people don't know any real entities, and with them all is a product of their unconscious. That's why I'm not going around preaching about Manfred and the Devils. (Only half in fun, for finding out how the world reacts.) And I would neither accept somebody else's view about interpreting them as unconscious products, but I would let them believe what they want.

Numinoso,
I have no difficulty with the views you hold to be true.
I do know that the beings encountered are images of them retrieved by our supurb but as yet hardly explored visionary retrieval capabilities.  I am attempting to wrest these tools out of the territory of the mystics and priest magicians.
If I am correct and these are images then they are subject to both who they are and how we perceive them in my explanation of a telescope receiving and recovery system.  This is what I mean by a self referencing system.  Both the receiver and the perceived are integral to the clarity of the final delivered and perceived product.

Yes, funny man, why are your jokes always so hard to detect. "I can only tolerate two cups of coffee a day. If I drink more I have severe problems in my entire body that don't go away for days no matter what I do." Of course that are only images. The computer in front of me is an image only, too. And it depends on how I focus my eyes. (It doesn't depend on how it wants to appear, other than with these creatures. But they seem to depend in that respect on how they perceive us, so we would have to enter some communication theory. Like two observers who observe each other influence each other with these observation, but also get influenced by what they perceive.)